The German Ministry of the Interior is calling for citizens to sue Google as the legal owners of video platform YouTube for violation of laws banning public distribution of neonazi material and constituting sedition. Seeing that YouTube has ignored over 100 pertinent cease and desist applications by various plaintiffs, the German government feels that this is the only appropriate step to enforce rule of law.3 Comments

Comments

Oh, this is rich. For once, Google is running headlong into specific laws of a country and is being called on the carpet. What this is is a beautiful example of how Googles dollar-driven (though publicly proclaimed as "freedom and openness"-motivated) agenda in fact has a value-set that attempts to supercede all other codes of morality and socially-appropriate behavior. In the name of this pseudo-openness Google has no qualms whatsoever about allowing Nazi filth to be broadcast from its affiliate site; such ignorance spits on about 50 million graves (including some of my familys own blood.)
And what else could you call it but selfishness or ignorance? Because something is possible does that make it right? If I develop the technology to be able to break into my neighbors house undetected, does that mean I should? And why should a loose cannon like Google be allowed to reinsert philosophy to a people who have themselves been shattered by such teachings? How smart is it to re-open some wounds that the people themselves have worked diligently to keep in the past? Its not smart, its ignorant.
And what if Googles allowance of this actually worked to inspire and reinvigorate the movement which saw a successful resurgence of the Fourth Reich? Would Google admit culpability? Of course not! You see Google attempts to ride free and clear, above any set of morals, restrictions, guidelines. Google sees itself like a neutral spirit hovering above, between, around, and yet among each culture and society. Above all rules and laws but its own. (And remember, its own laws, or ethics, are determined by the U$D, not by empirical sets of standards.) But it is FAR from neutral. No standards is a standard itself.
So hooray! for the German government for having the sand to stand up to the Ghoul out of a noble desire to preserve and protect its own culture. History has shown the Germanic people to be among the most unconquerable people in its annals (not even Rome was fully successful.) And now they refuse to be conquered by Ghoulgle. Big, big kudos to the German people!!

Google has run into laws of other countries plenty of times, including bans against Nazi material. Search "Das Web" on Google.de, and youll see plenty of Nazi sites that dont show not because of language issues but because theyve been censored due to German laws. Or do this:
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=american+nazi+party
And youll see this disclosure at the bottom:
Aus Rechtsgründen hat Google 2 Ergebnis(se) von dieser Seite entfernt. Weitere Informationen über diese Rechtsgründe finden Sie unter ChillingEffects.org.
My German is bad, but thats saying two results were pulled that otherwise would have shown up, linking to an explanation about why.
Whats amazing to me is that the German government itself doesnt take action directly. If Google is violating a German law, then the German government shouldnt need to enlist citizens to lodge a complaint. Just sue Google directly, like France did over Nazi material on Yahoo Auctions.

@Danny: Your German cant be THAT bad, really because everything you say about that notice is spot on. :)
Its a fairly complicated legal situation which has to do with Germany being a federal republic with lots of laws being enforceable only via the respective states, etc. etc.
Moreover, every single offensive video being featured on YouTube has to be addressed individually, requiring a separate suit, and so on.
Add to that the fact that Internet jurisdiction as well as litigation has only been gaining traction fairly recently in Germany, with lots of conflicting court rulings abounding (one highly typical case being eBay), and it gets all the more confusing.
Finally, its very much a political issue and has actually been so for quite a while.
E.g. the EUs (esp. Germanys and Frances) initiatives to establish a govt. owned European search engine (think Theseus here) is underpinned by the administrations view of Google, Yahoo! and MSN/Live being entirely US owned entities with all the dependencies this entails.
What you wont find a lot of mention made of in the mainstream media is the European politicians perception that the search engines (privately owned or not) actually constitute prime intelligence assets in American hands - which, at the end of the day, boils down to rating them security risks.
While this may seem unrelated, it actually does illustrate how different agendas can lead to entirely incompatible perceptions: The case of Scientology being under perpetual surveillance by German intelligence services since the early 90s or so isnt, as the US media are so fond of depicting it, about "freedom of speech and creed" censorship exerted by the German government or a proactive policy to fend off a "destructive cult" - SC is actually gauged to be a US intelligence operation (or, at the very least, adjunct), a "fifth column" if you like. (Not saying I agree with all the above myself, just explaining the mechanics at work here.)
By the same token, Google is very much under political scrutiny, with European sensitivities concerning established consumer and privacy protection regulations merely adding to the aggravation.